NationStates Jolt Archive

According to the History Channel program, Battlefield Detectives, Israel used large quantities of napalm against the Egyptians in the 1967 war which Israel started in an attempt to grab land.

*awaits IDF to declare anyone against pro-Israeli policy an anti-semite*

Napalm is classified as a Chemical Weapon WMD? wow, then u'd think Willie Pete (white phosphorus) would be classified as on as well

It's definately a chemical weapon, but I don't think it's a WMD.

Anyways, its nasty shite and really ought not to be used at all.

Think I beat IDF to it. Everyone knows of the preemptive strike following intercepted radio messages from Egypt beginning the war. I don't know where you're pulling the Napalm story out of, but seems to me it is a certain physiological part that also emits methane. So methane and Napalm both come out, nice. But your sources that you cited seem very accurate so I'll have to believe you on that one.

Napalm as a chemical weapon? No. Napalm is an incendiary. A very effective one, at that. Too bad we stopped using it.

Think I beat IDF to it. Everyone knows of the preemptive strike following intercepted radio messages from Egypt beginning the war. I don't know where you're pulling the Napalm story out of, but seems to me it is a certain physiological part that also emits methane. So methane and Napalm both come out, nice. But your sources that you cited seem very accurate so I'll have to believe you on that one.

Battlefield Detectives: The Six Day War
on the History Channel

Battlefield Detectives: The Six Day War
on the History Channel

http://www.thehistorychannel.co.za/site/tv_guide/full_details/Conflict/programme_3054.php

funny, I didn't see anything about Napalm mentioned. what i did see, though, was the mention of the preemptive strike of which I was speaking, and no mention at all of the land grab you mentioned. I hold my claims of the smell that your words are mixed with methane.

Napalm as a chemical weapon? No. Napalm is an incendiary. A very effective one, at that. Too bad we stopped using it.

The US stopped using it because the UN and the Geneva Conventions consider it a chemical weapon. An inhumanitarian one at that. Any weapon system that causes unnecessary suffering is illegal under international laws and treaties. Napalm causes unnecessary suffering.

Next they'll be telling me a nuke is a chemical weapon. I really don't have time to update my chemical weapons list every hour.

Napalm as a chemical weapon? No. Napalm is an incendiary. A very effective one, at that. Too bad we stopped using it.

The UN convention on chemical weapons (http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/0/3f233cb0f0c580f8c125641f002d42a8?OpenDocument)
[1. "Chemical Weapons" means the following, together or separately:

(a) Toxic chemicals and their precursors, except where intended for purposes not prohibited under this Convention, as long as the types and quantities are consistent with such purposes; (...)

2. "Toxic Chemical" means:

Any chemical which through its chemical action on life processes can cause death, temporary incapacitation or permanent harm to humans or animals. This includes all such chemicals, regardless of their origin or of their method of production, and regardless of whether they are produced in facilities, in munitions or elsewhere.]

So napalm is a chemical weapon.

http://www.thehistorychannel.co.za/site/tv_guide/full_details/Conflict/programme_3054.php

funny, I didn't see anything about Napalm mentioned. what i did see, though, was the mention of the preemptive strike of which I was speaking, and no mention at all of the land grab you mentioned. I hold my claims of the smell that your words are mixed with methane.

That page was just a summary of the program. You have to watch the show to see that part about where the Israelis used napalm against Egyptian forces who had already dropped their weapons and were running away.

regardless of whether or not napalm is a chemical weapon or not, it isn't mentioned in the article

Egypt was fighting because it refused to accept the existance of Israel and it's people. Israel was fighting because it wanted to live.

Honestly, when something boils down to that, who gives a fuck about what Egypt went through that hindered them from their genocidal aims.

If you're trapped in an alley with 6-7 thugs coming down on you with weapons ready to take your life, you're not gonna say...I'm gonna defend myself 75% of the way because I wouldn't want to cause these guys an inhumanitarian suffering.:rolleyes:

regardless of whether or not napalm is a chemical weapon or not, it isn't mentioned in the article

Can napalm cause death, temporary incapacitation, or permananent harm? Is it a chemical? It's not a maybe thing, napalm is definitely a chemical weapon.

regardless of whether or not napalm is a chemical weapon or not, it isn't mentioned in the articleMaybe it is mentioned in the programme.

That page was just a summary of the program. You have to watch the show to see that part about where the Israelis used napalm against Egyptian forces who had already dropped their weapons and were running away.

ok buddy, so we have to trust your word on this probable misinterpretation of concepts shown in the program itself.

1. If it was not in the summary it was probably not important, or one of the main concepts of the program (While the fact that it was a pre-emptive strike most definitely does appear there).

2. Please give up your ridiculous smelly claims that the war was begun by Israel due to a land grab attempt.

I don't feel like arguing about a dubious source with someone who mixes what may be fact with his personal opinion in an unclear fashion.
I'm off.

The UN convention on chemical weapons (http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/0/3f233cb0f0c580f8c125641f002d42a8?OpenDocument)
1. "Chemical Weapons" means the following, together or separately:

(a) Toxic chemicals and their precursors, except where intended for purposes not prohibited under this Convention, as long as the types and quantities are consistent with such purposes; (...)

2. "Toxic Chemical" means:

Any chemical which through its chemical action on life processes can cause death, temporary incapacitation or permanent harm to humans or animals. This includes all such chemicals, regardless of their origin or of their method of production, and regardless of whether they are produced in facilities, in munitions or elsewhere.

So napalm is a chemical weapon.

Napalm does not kill by using it's toxic effects, however. It kills by burning.

Example: PETN is slightly toxic. But it does not kill by it's toxicity. It kills by detenation (for lack of a better term). Ergo, it is not a chemical weapon.

Example 2: Lead was used to make bullets for many years. Lead is toxic. But it is not a chemical weapon because it's way of killing is not lead exposure. It is poking holes. Ergo, it is not a chemical weapon.

The History Channel is obviously a subsidiary of Al-Jazeera and thus a part of the Al'Qaeda network.

Napalm may not be a deliberate toxin, but anyone who got burned by it isn't going to say it's not a chemical weapon either.

Israel was fighting because it wanted to live.At the expense of others.

Egypt was fighting because it refused to accept the existance of Israel and it's people. Israel was fighting because it wanted to live.

Honestly, when something boils down to that, who gives a fuck about what Egypt went through that hindered them from their genocidal aims.

If you're trapped in an alley with 6-7 thugs coming down on you with weapons ready to take your life, you're not gonna say...I'm gonna defend myself 75% of the way because I wouldn't want to cause these guys an inhumanitarian suffering.:rolleyes:

But if they're runnning away are you going to shoot them in the back?

Napalm does not kill by using it's toxic effects, however. It kills by burning.

Example: PETN is slightly toxic. But it does not kill by it's toxicity. It kills by detenation (for lack of a better term). Ergo, it is not a chemical weapon.

Example 2: Lead was used to make bullets for many years. Lead is toxic. But it is not a chemical weapon because it's way of killing is not lead exposure. It is poking holes. Ergo, it is not a chemical weapon.

Go back to chemistry class, burning is a chemical process.

The US quit using napalm because of the enviromental effects. they now uses this. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_77_bomb)

Chemical Weapon: A weapon made out of Chemicals.







:D

Egypt was fighting because it refused to accept the existance of Israel and it's people. Israel was fighting because it wanted to live.

Honestly, when something boils down to that, who gives a fuck about what Egypt went through that hindered them from their genocidal aims.

If you're trapped in an alley with 6-7 thugs coming down on you with weapons ready to take your life, you're not gonna say...I'm gonna defend myself 75% of the way because I wouldn't want to cause these guys an inhumanitarian suffering.:rolleyes:

The only thing Egypt did was say that the Brits, French and Israelis were not allowed to use the Suez. The only thing Syria and Jordan did was build a dam which diverted water away from Israel. As a result, Israel attacked them, starting a war to grab territory.
That is why the UN has demanded that Israel return all land it stole in 1967.

Go back to chemistry class, burning is a chemical process.

If burning were a chemical process as precieved by the framers of the Treaty you quoted before, wouldn't any explosive be a chemical weapon? After all, a release of energy such as that is a chemical reaction.

But no, they are not, because they do not kill by toxicity. They kill by other means.

Napalm, along with TNT, PETN, RDX, C4, Semtex, and hundreds of other explosives are not chemical weapons because they do not kill with their toxicity.

Sarin, Ricin, VX Gas, Chlorine Gas, Mustard Gas and Hydrogen cyanide are chemical weapons because they kill with their toxicity.

Go back to chemistry class, burning is a chemical process.

The main method of killing is not fire, it is a quick suffication from lack of oxygen.

The main method of killing is not fire, it is a quick suffication from lack of oxygen.

The main point for using napalm is to cause death by torture and inhumane suffering. A bullet usually causes realatively immediate death. Napalm causes inhumane suffering that can last for a couple of days before the victim dies. And napalm does not always kill. But it does always cause torturuos suffering.

The main method of killing is not fire, it is a quick suffication from lack of oxygen.

Which is a byproduct of the combustion of the napalm mixture.

And there really isn't anything quick about suffication, I'm afraid.

The only thing Egypt did was say that the Brits, French and Israelis were not allowed to use the Suez. The only thing Syria and Jordan did was build a dam which diverted water away from Israel. As a result, Israel attacked them, starting a war to grab territory.
That is why the UN has demanded that Israel return all land it stole in 1967.

1-the Suez canal is a vital port/canal for israeli trade, and by doing so, the egyptians cut off trade going to israel
2-its the middle east! israel needs water, and the dam was taking a large amount of it
3-its not "stolen land" it was won through war in which both sides were willing participants, and accepted the risks of the war

The main point for using napalm is to cause death by torture and inhumane suffering. A bullet usually causes realatively immediate death. Napalm causes inhumane suffering that can last for a couple of days before the victim dies. And napalm does not always kill. But it does always cause torturuos suffering.

War causes death and inhumane suffering. Because bullets supposedly kill quicker does not make them better.

War is the most horrible thing ever invented by man. Restricting weapons used arn't going to make it any less so.

The main method of killing is not fire, it is a quick suffication from lack of oxygen.

[Toxic Chemical" means:

Any chemical which through its chemical action on life processes can cause death, temporary incapacitation or permanent harm to humans or animals. This includes all such chemicals, regardless of their origin or of their method of production, and regardless of whether they are produced in facilities, in munitions or elsewhere]

Can napalm cause damage to living things from chemical actions? It can and it does, and so it is a chemical weapon.

Israel used Napalm against Lebanon in 1980 as well. And they even used it against US troops.


http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/napalm.htm

The only thing Egypt did was say that the Brits, French and Israelis were not allowed to use the Suez. The only thing Syria and Jordan did was build a dam which diverted water away from Israel. As a result, Israel attacked them, starting a war to grab territory.
That is why the UN has demanded that Israel return all land it stole in 1967.
Isreal was(and still is although not as much) dependant on trade through the Suez cannal. Thats like Iran and Oman cutting off the Strait of Hormuz(what links the Perisan Gulf from the rest of the world.) and the US invading.

at Brachiosaurus:

if you saw a foreign battleship near your harbor wouldn't you attack it as well?
and i don't believe the validity of the source

[Toxic Chemical" means:

Any chemical which through its chemical action on life processes can cause death, temporary incapacitation or permanent harm to humans or animals. This includes all such chemicals, regardless of their origin or of their method of production, and regardless of whether they are produced in facilities, in munitions or elsewhere]

Can napalm cause damage to living things from chemical actions? It can and it does, and so it is a chemical weapon.

Then that means that an explosive is a chemical weapon and outlawed by the UN. Bullets are designed to cause harm so lets outlaw them too!

[Toxic Chemical" means:

Any chemical which through its chemical action on life processes can cause death, temporary incapacitation or permanent harm to humans or animals. This includes all such chemicals, regardless of their origin or of their method of production, and regardless of whether they are produced in facilities, in munitions or elsewhere]

Can napalm cause damage to living things from chemical actions? It can and it does, and so it is a chemical weapon.

So can bullets, so can swords...heck, my fist causes harm on life processes through chemical actions and reactions.
That definition is so broad it is ridiculous.

1-the Suez canal is a vital port/canal for israeli trade, and by doing so, the egyptians cut off trade going to israel
2-its the middle east! israel needs water, and the dam was taking a large amount of it
3-its not "stolen land" it was won through war in which both sides were willing participants, and accepted the risks of the war

1. Even so, the canal is Egyptian territory. They have the right to do whatever the heck they want with it. They don't need Israel's permission nor do they need anyone elses.

2. Israel does not have the right to steal other people's water. They can either buy the water or build desalinazation plants.

3. Israel started the war, not the Arabs. If the war really was not about seizing land then Israel should have no problem with agreeing to return to its pre1967 borders. The fact that they are not just goes to prove the war was an intentional land grab.

against the Egyptians in the 1967 war which Israel started in an attempt to grab land. And the Egyptian Army was massed on the border just for the hell of it right?

According to the History Channel program, Battlefield Detectives, Israel used large quantities of napalm against the Egyptians in the 1967 war which Israel started in an attempt to grab land.

Well, they kinda were in a tight squeeze.

3. Israel started the war, not the Arabs. If the war really was not about seizing land then Israel should have no problem with agreeing to return to its pre1967 borders. The fact that they are not just goes to prove the war was an intentional land grab.

Ehhhh, no. The arabs started the war in a suprise assualt, not the Israelis.

So can bullets, so can swords...heck, my fist causes harm on life processes through chemical actions and reactions.
That definition is so broad it is ridiculous.

Well, you're making it broad. What chemical process does the sword, bullet, or fist cause which harms the process?

And this is about the best definition there is. Perhaps you should go to the first page and see the source.

3-its not "stolen land" it was won through war in which both sides were willing participants, and accepted the risks of the war

You'll find that the Palestinian civillian population were not, did not. Annexation of land by force is a no-no. Doesnt matter who took it. Now if these were empty areas, I'm sure it would be a matter of far less contention. However there are people living there who do not want to be governed by Israel and have as much right to self determination as their Israeli neigbours, thanks bunches.

[Toxic Chemical" means:

Any chemical which through its chemical action on life processes can cause death, temporary incapacitation or permanent harm to humans or animals. This includes all such chemicals, regardless of their origin or of their method of production, and regardless of whether they are produced in facilities, in munitions or elsewhere]

Can napalm cause damage to living things from chemical actions? It can and it does, and so it is a chemical weapon.

Following your logic, gunpowder is a chemical weapon. The chemical action of gunpowder is used to propel a bullet into a human body. Gunpowder, napalm, TNT etc. all do the same thing, more or less- they combust.

The key phrase, I think, is "through its chemical action on life processes." That's aimed at such things as mustard gas, which burns lung tissue, and nerve agents that shut down organs. It can't logically apply to chemical combustants like napalm or explosives like gunpowder.

And the Egyptian Army was massed on the border just for the hell of it right?

to defend the sinai against European aggression.

1. Even so, the canal is Egyptian territory. They have the right to do whatever the heck they want with it. They don't need Israel's permission nor do they need anyone elses.

2. Israel does not have the right to steal other people's water. They can either buy the water or build desalinazation plants.

3. Israel started the war, not the Arabs. If the war really was not about seizing land then Israel should have no problem with agreeing to return to its pre1967 borders. The fact that they are not just goes to prove the war was an intentional land grab.

1-when china closed their ports in the 1700s, the entire world tried to reopen them, because they blocked so much valuable trade. the same could be said for the suez canal, because it blocked not only israeli trade, but british and french as well

2-israel wasnt the one stealing the water, like you said before, it was syria that built the dam, and israel needed its vital water back

3-israel won the land in the war, and if egypt hadn't massed its troops in the first place, israel wouldn;t have attacked

at Brachiosaurus:

if you saw a foreign battleship near your harbor wouldn't you attack it as well?
and i don't believe the validity of the source

You can determine a ships nationality by its flag. If you are not sure, you ask them to id themselves. Clearly the Americans identified themselves and they were attacked anyway.

Globalsecurity.org is not a valid source?

to defend the sinai against European aggression.

Eurowhutnow?

I think you're confusing two very different situations. the Suez Crisis (where the French and British invaded and took control of the canal) occured in 1956. The Six-Day War occured in 1967.

Following your logic, gunpowder is a chemical weapon. The chemical action of gunpowder is used to propel a bullet into a human body. Gunpowder, napalm, TNT etc. all do the same thing, more or less- they combust.

The key phrase, I think, is "through its chemical action on life processes." That's aimed at such things as mustard gas, which burns lung tissue, and nerve agents that shut down organs. It can't logically apply to chemical combustants like napalm or explosives like gunpowder.

My logic? Go argue with the UN. With their definition, it's clearly a chemical weapon.

Ehhhh, no. The arabs started the war in a suprise assualt, not the Israelis.

On what source do you base that? All the sources we know say that Israel attacked the arabs. Not the other way around.

Globalsecurity.org is not a valid source?

Teh Joo meedya biass!!11!1!!! :mad:

Eurowhutnow?

I think you're confusing two very different situations. the Suez Crisis (where the French and British invaded and took control of the canal) occured in 1956. The Six-Day War occured in 1967.

The French wanted the canal area so they signed a secret treaty with Israel for the Israelis to attack Egypt so that France and Britain could take defacto control of Sinai under the guise of a "peacekeeping" force.
Their real goal to sieze control of the canal by saying that Israel proved that Egypt was not capable of defending the canal.

On what source do you base that? All the sources we know say that Israel attacked the arabs. Not the other way around.

Linky: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1967_war

And I got it slightly wrong. It wasn't a suprise attack by the Arabs, it was Egypt amassing 100,000 men, 1,000 tanks on the border and closing the straits of tiran.

1. Even so, the canal is Egyptian territory. They have the right to do whatever the heck they want with it. They don't need Israel's permission nor do they need anyone elses.

Generally speaking, shutting down a canal or a straight to one party is considered a casus belli . Though the canal is in Egyptian territory, Egypt does not have the right to selectively disallow use of the canal under international law.

2. Israel does not have the right to steal other people's water. They can either buy the water or build desalinazation plants.

Again, this is a complicated area of international law. But, to put it simply, cutting off another country's water is a hostile act.

3. Israel started the war, not the Arabs.

So you claim. But Israel's neighbors had taken hostile actions against Israel and were in the process of mobilizing their militaries for an invasion. A country in that situation has no obligation to wait for the hammer to fall before defending itself. The Arab world was hours away from invading Israel, the Israelis were just able to hit them first (and beat them like a red-headed stepchild)

if the war reallly was not about seizing land then Israel should have no problem with agreeing to return to its pre1967 borders. The fact that they are not just goes to prove the war was an intentional land grab.

Israel has repeatedly negotiated in good faith in an effort to resolve its disputes with its neighbors. It gave back the entire Sinai to Egypt in exchange for peace. Israel was willing to agree to the "Two State Solution" back in 2000, but Arafat was more interested in holding on to power than solving his peoples' suffering.

All Israel has ever asked of its neighbors is for them to recognize its existence and to renounce their oft-stated goal to drive the Isrealis into the sea.

My logic? Go argue with the UN. With their definition, it's clearly a chemical weapon.

You're the one arguing that this provisions applies to napalm. Using your interpretation, this provision would also apply to gunpower.

That leads to the logical conclusion that your interpretation is incorrect. This provision simply does not cover chemicals that do harm through combustion.

To all you non-chemists:

Any chemical which through its chemical action on life processes

This is the opening quote.

You've all been focusing on "its chemical action"

You've left out "on life processes"

I'm sorry to say this, but Napalm is not a chemical weapon.

But if they're runnning away are you going to shoot them in the back?

Yes you do shoot them in the back. An enemy left to live can come back and fight another day.

Except...

If they are standing there with their hands up waving a white flag then you do not shoot them.

To all you non-chemists:



This is the opening quote.

You've all been focusing on "its chemical action"

You've left out "on life processes"

I'm sorry to say this, but Napalm is not a chemical weapon.

It is not a chemical weapon and would not consider it as such if a nation used it.

You can determine a ships nationality by its flag. If you are not sure, you ask them to id themselves. Clearly the Americans identified themselves and they were attacked anyway.

Globalsecurity.org is not a valid source?

I don't think it can be proved either way if Israel knew it was an American ship or not. Watched a few shows on the history channel about it and couldn't make up my mind either way.

To all you non-chemists:



This is the opening quote.

You've all been focusing on "its chemical action"

You've left out "on life processes"

I'm sorry to say this, but Napalm is not a chemical weapon.

Following your logic, gunpowder is a chemical weapon. The chemical action of gunpowder is used to propel a bullet into a human body. Gunpowder, napalm, TNT etc. all do the same thing, more or less- they combust.

The key phrase, I think, is "through its chemical action on life processes." That's aimed at such things as mustard gas, which burns lung tissue, and nerve agents that shut down organs. It can't logically apply to chemical combustants like napalm or explosives like gunpowder.

Reading carefully often prevents embarrassment.

Reading carefully often prevents embarrassment.

It would have saved a lot of emabarrassment in this thread.

Napalm causes indirect damage on life processes. Chemical weapons, like cyanide, causes direct damage on life processes.

You can determine a ships nationality by its flag. If you are not sure, you ask them to id themselves. Clearly the Americans identified themselves and they were attacked anyway.

Globalsecurity.org is not a valid source?

Actually, you really cannot. Maritime law requires you to fly the flag of the nation that your ship is registered in, not your homeport or the nationality of your crew. That's why you see so many Panamanian and Liberian flags flying from ships.

My logic? Go argue with the UN. With their definition, it's clearly a chemical weapon.
But is it the UN's definition or your interpretation of it? Napalm just combusts. As far as I know, it hasn't been specifically listed as a chemical weapon, any more than TNT, so I'd have to say it's conventional. Plus as others have said, there's the whole "chemical action on life processes" thingamajig, which as far as I know isn't any different from any other explosive chemical reaction.

A bullet usually causes realatively immediate death.

Untrue. Gutshots are typically slow and agonizing deaths.

Untrue. Gutshots are typically slow and agonizing deaths.
Yep, all depends on where you're hit. I'd imagine it's the same with napalm, a guy caught on the outside of the blast would be in a lot of pain but a guy caught right in the middle would probably be vapourised pretty quickly in that temperature.

!:eek:MG!

I just realized that Israel used chemical weapons in 1967!!

Quick, someone, make a thread or something! This is urgent! No time to spare!

Untrue. Gutshots are typically slow and agonizing deaths.

Other gunshot wounds aren't even immediately fatal, depending on the size of the round and the characteristics of it. Since we're talking about a military situation we'll stick with FMJ (full metal jacket) rounds and not things like hollowpoints.

5.56 rounds used by NATO forces and 7.62x39 rounds used by much of the world are really only immediately fatal if the round damages the heart or the head. Of course, many victims of gunshot wounds go into shock and may appear dead to a casual inspection from a distance.

One of the least pleasant ways to die due to gunshot wounds is from tension pneumothorax (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tension_pneumothorax), which is apparently prevalent enough that the Army feels it necessary to teach each and every private coming out of basic training, through the combat lifesaver course (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/68W#Plan_and_conduct_Combat_Lifesaver_training).

Note that describes the CLS course in broad terms, but I just didn't feel like looking any more.

I BEFRIEND CHESTNUTS;13261212']Yep, all depends on where you're hit. I'd imagine it's the same with napalm, a guy caught on the outside of the blast would be in a lot of pain but a guy caught right in the middle would probably be vapourised pretty quickly in that temperature.

Napalm sticks to you. If you get enough of it on you, you're pretty much fucked as it burns at 800 to 1,200 degrees C. Otherwise, it'll deoxygenate the air and suffocate you.

When people hear the term "chemical weapon" they think "poison gas" not napalm. That Israel used it doesn't surprise me - it was a common weapon at the time.

As for the attack on the Liberty, the US and Israel agree that it was a tragic mistake.

Napalm sticks to you. If you get enough of it on you, you're pretty much fucked as it burns at 800 to 1,200 degrees C. Otherwise, it'll deoxygenate the air and suffocate you.
I realise that, but if were right in the middle of a great big napalm flame cloud (Like you see in pictures of Vietnam), you'd go fairly quickly as opposed to being on the outer areas of it.

Napalm is no more a chemical weapon than ANFO.

It is not classified as a chemical weapon under the Chemical Weapons Convention, and as such, is not.

[Toxic Chemical" means:

Any chemical which through its chemical action on life processes can cause death, temporary incapacitation or permanent harm to humans or animals. This includes all such chemicals, regardless of their origin or of their method of production, and regardless of whether they are produced in facilities, in munitions or elsewhere]

Can napalm cause damage to living things from chemical actions? It can and it does, and so it is a chemical weapon.

For gods sake son, even Dihydrogen Monoxide can be considered a chemical weapon under that definition.

Under the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) chemicals are divided into three groups, defining their purpose and treatment:

* Schedule One are those typically used in weapons such as sarin and mustard gas and tabun;

* Schedule Two include those that can be used in weapons such as amiton and BZ;

* Schedule Three chemicals include the least toxic substances that can be used for research and the production of medicine, dyes, textiles, etc.

CW agents mainly used against people are divided into lethal and incapacitating categories. A substance is classified as incapacitating if less than 1/100 of the lethal dose causes incapacitation, e.g., through nausea or visual problems. The limit between lethal and incapacitating substances is not absolute but refers to a statistical average.

Incendiary agents such as napalm and phosphorus are not considered to be CW agents since they achieve their effect mainly through thermal energy. Certain types of smoke ammunition are not classed as a chemical weapon since the poisonous effect is not the reason for their use. Plants, micro-organisms, the produced toxins belong to that class. Pathogenic micro-organisms, mainly viruses and bacteria, are classed as biological weapons.

Napalm is not a chemical weapon.

Fail.

According to the History Channel program, Battlefield Detectives, Israel used large quantities of napalm against the Egyptians in the 1967 war which Israel started in an attempt to grab land.

First: Why should I care? Unless you can prove civilians were killed, I don't really.

Second: Egypt started it.

Now, however, it's worth noting, that since Napalm is not a chemical weapon, Israel did not use chemical weapons on Egypt in 1967.

Egypt, on the other hand, did use chemical weapons on Yemen on numerous occassions from 1963 to 1967 (mostly phosgene gas and mustard gas)

Battlefield Detectives: The Six Day War
on the History Channel

The History Channel is fun, but you'll need a better source then that Sonny Jim.
Hell, I could site them as proof that aliens built the pyramids.

It would have saved a lot of emabarrassment in this thread.

Napalm causes indirect damage on life processes. Chemical weapons, like cyanide, causes direct damage on life processes.

Because that statement seems somewhat out of place…

Reading carefully often prevents embarrassment.

…it is possible that this point is proved twice over.

However, it is also possible that the point was not clear enough. If that is the case then an apology is extended.

Despite the fact that the embarrassment comment might have applied to the definition of chemical weapons that was not what was being addressed.

For gods sake son, even Dihydrogen Monoxide can be considered a chemical weapon under that definition.

Well, inhaling large quantities of it will result in death...

For gods sake son, even Dihydrogen Monoxide can be considered a chemical weapon under that definition.

Wern't the Soviets developing DHM before the breakup? Nasty stuff, that.

The only thing Egypt did was say that the Brits, French and Israelis were not allowed to use the Suez.

A blockade of sorts.

"The International Criminal Court plans to include blockades against coasts and ports in its list of acts of war in 2009."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockade

Wern't the Soviets developing DHM before the breakup? Nasty stuff, that.

I believe large tracts of land in Siberia were napalmed in order to assist developement and harvesting. It was horrifying. It is horrifying.

Wern't the Soviets developing DHM before the breakup? Nasty stuff, that.

Yeah, they were playing around with DHM a lot. If I recall, they kept vast quantities of it stored in tanks underground in case there was a war with NATO, and there were some nasty accidents with it during that time.

Napalm burns, dammit. It kills.

Napalm might be one, but I don't think it's the VX nerve gas kind of chemical weapon. I mean, tear gas has been used extensively and it's still chemical. Besides, napalm is pretty damn effective.

Yeah, they were playing around with DHM a lot. If I recall, they kept vast quantities of it stored in tanks underground in case there was a war with NATO, and there were some nasty accidents with it during that time.

Yea...they ran out of those little plastic cups at the cooler near human resources. It...it......was horrible.. *turns pale, remembering the carnage*

DHM also has huge environmental impacts.

DHM is a major component in acid rain.
DHM is a greenhouse gas.
DHM contributes to natural disasters such as hurricanes and floods.
DHM is a solvent and it contributes greatly to erosion.
DHM can carry many parasites and diseases.

We could kill every human and on the planet if we covered the Earth with it in it's liquid form.

Following your logic, gunpowder is a chemical weapon. The chemical action of gunpowder is used to propel a bullet into a human body. Gunpowder, napalm, TNT etc. all do the same thing, more or less- they combust.

The key phrase, I think, is "through its chemical action on life processes." That's aimed at such things as mustard gas, which burns lung tissue, and nerve agents that shut down organs. It can't logically apply to chemical combustants like napalm or explosives like gunpowder.

Exactly. Napalm has a "chemical reaction on life processes", it causes you to burst into flames. Gunpowder has a chemical reaction on the bullet. Now if you were to pour the gunpowder on a PERSON and ignite the powder then it would count.

For gods sake son, even Dihydrogen Monoxide can be considered a chemical weapon under that definition.

You're calling drowning a chemical reaction?

Can napalm cause death, temporary incapacitation, or permananent harm? Is it a chemical? It's not a maybe thing, napalm is definitely a chemical weapon.

Napalm is NOT chemical weapon. It is an incendiary weapon. The UN classified it as a conventional weapon in 1981's CCWs. Napalm could legally be used until 1983. I don't know if you realize it, but 1983 came after 1967.

Next time try to use facts and look up the difference between incendiary weapons and chemical weapons.

Go back to chemistry class, burning is a chemical process.
so are explosions. I guess all bombs are chemical weapons by your poor logic.

Exactly. Napalm has a "chemical reaction on life processes", it causes you to burst into flames. Gunpowder has a chemical reaction on the bullet. Now if you were to pour the gunpowder on a PERSON and ignite the powder then it would count.

Napalm does not cause you to combust. It sticks to you and burns the skin. The human body is rather hard to light aflame by itself.

1. Even so, the canal is Egyptian territory. They have the right to do whatever the heck they want with it. They don't need Israel's permission nor do they need anyone elses. Your facts are wrong, Egypt blocked the Tiran Straights, which are international waters. That alone gave Israel justification to attack.



3. Israel started the war, not the Arabs. If the war really was not about seizing land then Israel should have no problem with agreeing to return to its pre1967 borders. The fact that they are not just goes to prove the war was an intentional land grab.

You need to actually learn something because you know jack shit.

The Egyptian Army was mobilizing on Israel's border and the Mossad had a strong source within the Egyptian military warn them of an imminent attack. If Israel didn't attack in June, then July would bring an Egyptian invasion.

You'll find that the Palestinian civillian population were not, did not. Annexation of land by force is a no-no. Doesnt matter who took it. Now if these were empty areas, I'm sure it would be a matter of far less contention. However there are people living there who do not want to be governed by Israel and have as much right to self determination as their Israeli neigbours, thanks bunches.

I'm sure the Arabs would just give the Israelis their land back if they had managed to win any of the wars of annihilation they launched. Am I right? Oh of course the Arabs wouldn't annex Israel if they won in 1948, 67, or 73:rolleyes:

so are explosions. I guess all bombs are chemical weapons by your poor logic.

Napalm does not cause you to combust. It sticks to you and burns the skin. The human body is rather hard to light aflame by itself.

So if napalm sticks to a body and continuously burns, I think we can say it is different from a bomb, which goes through once.

And by the way, bombs aren't great either IDF. They are indiscriminate in who they kill, and they have always killed more civilians than combatants.

So if napalm sticks to a body and continuously burns, I think we can say it is different from a bomb, which goes through once.

And by the way, bombs aren't great either IDF. They are indiscriminate in who they kill, and they have always killed more civilians than combatants.

Zayun, here is my challenge to you. Find me one piece of international law which calls it a chemical weapon.

Every weapons agreement calls it a conventional weapon and NOT a chemical weapon.

You are spewing shit now go defend it.

You're calling drowning a chemical reaction?

You could throw a block of sodium into water, and if someone got burned, water could be considered a chemical weapon by this definition. Yes, this is completely idiotic, but i believe that is his point. The definition is very broad and stupid.

Zayun, here is my challenge to you. Find me one piece of international law which calls it a chemical weapon.

Every weapons agreement calls it a conventional weapon and NOT a chemical weapon.

You are spewing shit now go defend it.

It is irrelevant to me whether it is a chemical weapon or not. Why are you making such a big deal of all of this?

So if napalm sticks to a body and continuously burns, I think we can say it is different from a bomb, which goes through once.

And by the way, bombs aren't great either IDF. They are indiscriminate in who they kill, and they have always killed more civilians than combatants.

Zayun, here is my challenge to you. Find me one piece of international law which calls it a chemical weapon.

Every weapons agreement calls it a conventional weapon and NOT a chemical weapon.

You are spewing shit now go defend it.

Does it really matter?
If anything this 'debate' should be focused on the reasons for and the effects of the war, not how to classify what a few people got killed by...:rolleyes::p:(

Though I am not at all sure how to approach this topic at all.

So if napalm sticks to a body and continuously burns, I think we can say it is different from a bomb, which goes through once.

Napalm stops burning when all fuel has been burned up. Hypothetically, napalm would stop buring after it had burnt itself out. But you'd be pretty much screwed by then.

One of the least pleasant ways to die due to gunshot wounds is from tension pneumothorax (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tension_pneumothorax), which is apparently prevalent enough that the Army feels it necessary to teach each and every private coming out of basic training, through the combat lifesaver course (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/68W#Plan_and_conduct_Combat_Lifesaver_training).


Well, the center mass is generally the easiest to hit with bullets, and that's generally where the lungs are.

It is irrelevant to me whether it is a chemical weapon or not.

Then why are you raising a fuss that it is?

Then why are you raising a fuss that it is?


C'mon people! We have page quota to fill before this thread fizzles out. Go go go!

C'mon people! We have page quota to fill before this thread fizzles out. Go go go!

Um... um... um... Oh, got it!

THE JEWS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE HOLOCAUST!

There you go. Not only have I godwinned, but I've given us another discussion that'll last for years, let alone pages.

Then why are you raising a fuss that it is?

To me, a weapon that essentially burns you alive is not good, whether it is a "chemical" weapon or a "conventional" one.

You could throw a block of sodium into water, and if someone got burned, water could be considered a chemical weapon by this definition.

More likely the sodium would be considered the chemical weapon in that scenario, or the combination of the two.

Well, the center mass is generally the easiest to hit with bullets, and that's generally where the lungs are.

Center mass is where your IBA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interceptor_body_armor) generally is as well. There is a small bit near each shoulder where the plate isn't over your lungs. Also, unless you want to wear another 15 pounds of crap there aren't plates on the sides either.

Not to say that it isn't prevalent, but when I was there in 2003-4 the vast majority of injuries I saw were from shrapnel to the face and arms.

I don't think it can be proved either way if Israel knew it was an American ship or not. Watched a few shows on the history channel about it and couldn't make up my mind either way.

Israel has certainly never apologized for it.

To me, a weapon that essentially burns you alive is not good, whether it is a "chemical" weapon or a "conventional" one.

No weapons used in war are good weapons. It's a misnomer. Weapons cause pain, suffering, and death.

To me, a weapon that essentially burns you alive is not good, whether it is a "chemical" weapon or a "conventional" one.

Not what you said.


Can napalm cause death, temporary incapacitation, or permananent harm? Is it a chemical? It's not a maybe thing, napalm is definitely a chemical weapon.

No weapons used in war are good weapons. It's a misnomer. Weapons cause pain, suffering, and death.

Is it a misnomer if everyone knows it is?

Center mass is where your IBA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interceptor_body_armor) generally is as well. There is a small bit near each shoulder where the plate isn't over your lungs. Also, unless you want to wear another 15 pounds of crap there aren't plates on the sides either.


Sure, body armor works, but it's no god mode or an inch of ceramic bonded titanium plate. As I understand it, multiple impacts with assault rifle calibre rounds will crack the plate and may get through.


Not to say that it isn't prevalent, but when I was there in 2003-4 the vast majority of injuries I saw were from shrapnel to the face and arms.

By 2003-4, most engagements had switched to booby traps, mines and bombs rather than direct assault anyway.

I BEFRIEND CHESTNUTS;13261183']But is it the UN's definition or your interpretation of it? Napalm just combusts. As far as I know, it hasn't been specifically listed as a chemical weapon, any more than TNT, so I'd have to say it's conventional. Plus as others have said, there's the whole "chemical action on life processes" thingamajig, which as far as I know isn't any different from any other explosive chemical reaction.

Actually if you understand how napalm operates:

"As well as explosive bombs the United States Air Force dropped a considerable number of incendiary devices. The most infamous of these was napalm, a mixture of petrol and a chemical thickner which produces a tough sticky gel that attaches itself to the skin. The igniting agent, white phosphorus, continues burning for a considerable amount of time. A reported three quarters of all napalm victims in Vietnam were burned through to the muscle and bone (fifth degree burns). The pain caused by the burning is so traumatic that it often causes death."
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/VNchemical.htm

"Incendiary agents such as napalm and phosphorus are not considered to be CW agents since they achieve their effect mainly through thermal energy."
http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/legal/cw/cwindex.html

It might not be considered a chemical weapon but its use is still illegal.
It was banned by the UN in 1980. You are not allowed to use for it any reason at all. Not even in war.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/incendiary-legal.htm

The rights of belligerents to adopt means of injuring the enemy is not unlimited. The customary law of war places limits on the exercise of a belligerent's power and requires that belligerents refrain from employing any kind or degree of violence which is not actually necessary.
Customary international law prohibits the launching of attacks (including bombardment) against either the civilian population as such or individual civilians as such.
The 1980 Protocol III of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons deals specifically with the Use of Incendiary Weapons
Paragraph 2 prohibits making of any military objective located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by air-delivered incendiary weapons, such as napalm.

According to the History Channel program, Battlefield Detectives, Israel used large quantities of napalm against the Egyptians in the 1967 war which Israel started in an attempt to grab land.

(*long breath*) Oh great, here we go again, another "n00k t3h 3b1L j00Z" thread. :rolleyes:

(*walks off wagging head*)

Can napalm cause death, temporary incapacitation, or permananent harm? Is it a chemical? It's not a maybe thing, napalm is definitely a chemical weapon.

Well, whether chemical or not, it is definitely also an incendiary weapon, judging from what my father has told me about it.

A blockade of sorts.

"The International Criminal Court plans to include blockades against coasts and ports in its list of acts of war in 2009."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockade

The Suez is not an international waterway. Nor is it a coast or a port of a foreign nation. It is the soverign territory of Egypt. The proposed law would not apply to the Suez.
If Egypt wanted to, they could cover the canal back up, as is their soverign right to. The Suez, at most, is an internal waterway which Egypt can do as it pleases.

Sure, body armor works, but it's no god mode or an inch of ceramic bonded titanium plate. As I understand it, multiple impacts with assault rifle calibre rounds will crack the plate and may get through.

The plates are actually quite resilient. I knew a guy who took 3 7.62x39 rounds to the front plate and none of them penetrated. Of course, the front of his torso was a gigantic bruise and he was medevaced, but it could have been much worse. Not to say that the vest isn't ever penetrated, I'm just saying that the plates actually do generally work as advertised, unlike so much of what Uncle Sam purchases for us.

By 2003-4, most engagements had switched to booby traps, mines and bombs rather than direct assault anyway.

Yeah, once the Iraqi Army folded there weren't many people who wanted to get into a stand up fight with us. We were supposed to engage the Mujahideen e Khulk (or however one spells it in the Latin alphabet) shortly after we crossed the berm and got to Anbar province, but ODA brokered a ceasefire, which really pissed some people off, since we'd designated them a terrorist group and all.

(*long breath*) Oh great, here we go again, another "n00k t3h 3b1L j00Z" thread. :rolleyes:

(*walks off wagging head*)



Well, whether chemical or not, it is definitely also an incendiary weapon, judging from what my father has told me about it.

I don't want to nuke the jews. That would require nuking every planet on earth, including the Arab nations. I just want them to give back the land they stole by force.

The Suez is not an international waterway. Nor is it a coast or a port of a foreign nation. It is the soverign territory of Egypt. The proposed law would not apply to the Suez.
If Egypt wanted to, they could cover the canal back up, as is their soverign right to. The Suez, at most, is an internal waterway which Egypt can do as it pleases.

The war was not over the Suez, it was over the blockade of the Straights of Tiran. That is a violation of international law. Please get your facts straight. You are confusing 1956 and 1967. Now go get yourself a clue.

\
It might not be considered a chemical weapon but its use is still illegal.
It was banned by the UN in 1980. You are not allowed to use for it any reason at all. Not even in war.



Wow you really need to get a clue.

Sure it was banned in 1983 (1980 is when they began to restrict it but not officially banned until 1983), but this thread is about 1967. Now tell me something genius. Which came first? 1967 or 1980

Given your sig supporting Hillary, I don't have much faith that you will answer my question

Not what you said.

Well, under that definition, it was a chemical weapon. Now, other people seem to think the UN isn't a good enough source.

In any case, I'm pretty sure it's been banned, so we know the UN doesn't think highly of it, and neither do I. Whether it is a chemical weapon or not depends on the definition I suppose, but napalm is a particularly brutal weapon.

Who didn't use napalm in the 60s?

The plates are actually quite resilient. I knew a guy who took 3 7.62x39 rounds to the front plate and none of them penetrated. Of course, the front of his torso was a gigantic bruise and he was medevaced, but it could have been much worse. Not to say that the vest isn't ever penetrated, I'm just saying that the plates actually do generally work as advertised, unlike so much of what Uncle Sam purchases for us.


I seem to recall manufacturer warnings against repeated use of IBAs that have already been hit.

And that's probably another thing about the plates really. Even if they stop the round, if you take too many hits, the concussive effects will be extremely unpleasant.

Who didn't use napalm in the 60s?

All the uncool kids.

I seem to recall manufacturer warnings against repeated use of IBAs that have already been hit.

And that's probably another thing about the plates really. Even if they stop the round, if you take too many hits, the concussive effects will be extremely unpleasant.

Yes, once the plates have been hit once they're replaced. This particular soldier was hit 3 times at once by a lucky burst of fire from about 10m away. We thought he'd died because he dropped and wasn't screaming his head off. It turned out that he just couldn't breathe for about 30 seconds or so.

Even if you get hit once the concussive effects aren't very pleasant. I was lucky enough to not get shot myself, but I know of soldiers who had ribs broken and such.

Well, under that definition, it was a chemical weapon. Now, other people seem to think the UN isn't a good enough source.


You'll have to prove that the UN actually said it was. Dig up the link if you've posted it before.


In any case, I'm pretty sure it's been banned, so we know the UN doesn't think highly of it, and neither do I. Whether it is a chemical weapon or not depends on the definition I suppose, but napalm is a particularly brutal weapon.

What the UN, or you, think of it, say's nothing about it's illegality at the time it was used. The ban was in effect in the 1980s. The war between Israel and Egypt was well before such a ban was in effect.

Wow you really need to get a clue.

Sure it was banned in 1983 (1980 is when they began to restrict it but not officially banned until 1983), but this thread is about 1967. Now tell me something genius. Which came first? 1967 or 1980

Given your sig supporting Hillary, I don't have much faith that you will answer my question

Are you seriously saying that Napalm only became immoral and unacceptable from 1980 onwards?

I mean by God people, who gives a damn whether or not Napalm was or was not deemed illegal by international law at this time, or that time?! It's a horrible, repulsive weapon that causes unnecessary suffering. Mind you that includes aerial bombs that shred people to pieces indiscriminately as well the volleys of rifle fire that puncture bodies. It's murder, and it's a crime.

Would you defend the use of chemical gas during WW1? The Geneva convention prohibiting its use was signed in 1925, so I suppose it was completely moral beforehand, in your eyes.

Are you seriously saying that Napalm only became immoral and unacceptable from 1980 onwards?

I mean by God people, who gives a damn whether or not Napalm was or was not deemed illegal by international law at this time, or that time?! It's a horrible, repulsive weapon that causes unnecessary suffering. Mind you that includes aerial bombs that shred people to pieces indiscriminately as well the volleys of rifle fire that puncture bodies. It's murder, and it's a crime.

Would you defend the use of chemical gas during WW1? The Geneva convention prohibitng its use was signed in 1925, so I suppose it was completely moral beforehand, in your eyes.

I do not appreciate war in the real world, nor do I see any real reason why there ever should be a moral position for war. But so long as war remains in its primary position, that being two or nations at armed conflict with one another, then there will always be one method that is more brutal than the other, with the sciences of physics, chemistry and various other fields being turned towards the more efficient and horrific forms of butchery.

War as a whole is not morally acceptable. Trying to place that unacceptability on the means of war is merely a bandaid to the symptoms of the larger problem.

Now if you restricted war to the use of clowns, custard pies and water sprinkling daisies, that would be a different story altogether.

I'm in total agreement with you Non Aligned States. However, what I'm really looking for is a condemnation of Israel's use of Napalm in 1967 from IDF, since it has since been deemed illegal and consensus is that it is one of the least humane methods of warfare.

I haven't noticed one in this thread from him so far. I apologise if he has, and I've missed it, however.

Now if you restricted war to the use of clowns, custard pies and water sprinkling daisies, that would be a different story altogether.

But mankind would pervert that horribly too. You'd have Special Forces consisting of clowns learning the art of stealth from The Burger King, Custard Pies filled with Spam, and then Daisy Cutter Bombs that spray everything within 500 yards with a stream of water.

Having trouble finding the perfect Christmas gift?

http://www.napalm.net/


Remember: Napalm sticks to kids.

Are you seriously saying that Napalm only became immoral and unacceptable from 1980 onwards?

I mean by God people, who gives a damn whether or not Napalm was or was not deemed illegal by international law at this time, or that time?! It's a horrible, repulsive weapon that causes unnecessary suffering. Mind you that includes aerial bombs that shred people to pieces indiscriminately as well the volleys of rifle fire that puncture bodies. It's murder, and it's a crime.

Would you defend the use of chemical gas during WW1? The Geneva convention prohibiting its use was signed in 1925, so I suppose it was completely moral beforehand, in your eyes.

Morals can't be applied to an immoral act such as war.

Napalm was 100% legal and was only used on military targets. If they were to have dropped napalm in the middle of Cairo, I would have a problem with it. I don't have a problem with it being used in 1967 against infantry.

Morals can't be applied to an immoral act such as war.

So we should just let our soldiers rape and pillage like in the good old days of the Crusades?


So, IDF. Your morality concerning war is influenced entirely by the decisions of international bodies. You can't even say the use of Napalm was wrong. Is it really that hard to condemn Israel for this one instance?

I presume, in order to not look like a hypocrite, you don't have a problem with poison gas being used in WW1 either? Or the mentioned raping and pillaging commited by armies throughout history, before it became illegal, in one way or another? You won't condemn them either?

Having trouble finding the perfect Christmas gift?

http://www.napalm.net/


Remember: Napalm sticks to kids.

Nice.

So we should just let our soldiers rape and pillage like in the good old days of the Crusades?


So, IDF. Your morality concerning war is influenced entirely by the decisions of international bodies. You can't even say the use of Napalm was wrong. Is it really that hard to condemn Israel for this one instance?

I presume, in order to not look like a hypocrite, you don't have a problem with poison gas being used in WW1 either? Or the mentioned raping and pillaging commited by armies throughout history, before it became illegal, in one way or another? You won't condemn them either?

Almost every military at the time used napalm and it was an acceptable weapon of war. You can never take rules and morals from one era and apply them to events before those rules came into being.

That applies for every case. You can't apply today's standards to WWI, Sherman's March, etc.

We could kill every human and on the planet if we covered the Earth with it in it's liquid form.

I believe that was tried already...

Almost every military at the time used napalm and it was an acceptable weapon of war. You can never take rules and morals from one era and apply them to events before those rules came into being.

That applies for every case. You can't apply today's standards to WWI, Sherman's March, etc.

So I shouldn't feel disgusted at war crimes commited throughout history, simply because at the time, they were not considered as such?

So I shouldn't feel disgusted at war crimes commited throughout history, simply because at the time, they were not considered as such?

I'm not saying that you shouldn't feel disgusted. What I'm saying is that you can not apply the rules of today to past events.

But mankind would pervert that horribly too. You'd have Special Forces consisting of clowns learning the art of stealth from The Burger King, Custard Pies filled with Spam, and then Daisy Cutter Bombs that spray everything within 500 yards with a stream of water.

And this would be a problem how? Except maybe with the blasphemy of spam in custard pies that is.

The UN convention on chemical weapons (http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/0/3f233cb0f0c580f8c125641f002d42a8?OpenDocument)
[1. "Chemical Weapons" means the following, together or separately:

(a) Toxic chemicals and their precursors, except where intended for purposes not prohibited under this Convention, as long as the types and quantities are consistent with such purposes; (...)

2. "Toxic Chemical" means:

Any chemical which through its chemical action on life processes can cause death, temporary incapacitation or permanent harm to humans or animals. This includes all such chemicals, regardless of their origin or of their method of production, and regardless of whether they are produced in facilities, in munitions or elsewhere.]

So napalm is a chemical weapon.



Um, no it isn't.....napalm doesn't do any permanent harm to a person through chemical process.....it kills only when ignited......sorta like wood, paper, many metals, most clothing, etc. So as soon as you're willing to toss those into the 'chemical weapon' category, then you can toss napalm in there as well

I'm not saying that you shouldn't feel disgusted. What I'm saying is that you can not apply the rules of today to past events.

I'm not suggesting time travelling back to earlier times, and somehow apply the legalities of warfare to prevent what happened. That doesn't change. So you know what we do?

We condemn these atrocities. And we set up laws so that they will never happen again. And we enforce them to make sure of it. And we condemn them no matter when they occured, because we cannot lose moral support behind the law, lest it become practically useless.

It's the only way we can learn from past history, lest we repeat it again.

We condemn these atrocities. And we set up laws so that they will never happen again. And we enforce them to make sure of it. And we condemn them no matter when they occurred, because we cannot lose moral support behind the law, lest it become practically useless.

It's the only way we can learn from past history, lest we repeat it again.

For the most part, I would agree with you. However, the way one goes about this condemnation is also extremely important.

For example, take what we are talking about now.

Israel is not inherently evil because they used napalm, because it was, in fact, a generally accepted weapon, and no one thought anything of it. And I do mean no one. We, now, say "omg napalm = noez," but they didn't back then, because it was just another weapon of war. To put it simply, they didn't know any better.

Which is why I don't like to use the word "condemn," and yes, it is nitpicking semantics, but it is somewhat important, considering the context.

Errr... napalm isn't a chemical weapon, and the only reason that the US doesn't use it at the moment (although it was dropped on Republican Guard forces in 2003) is that a) It's a PR nightmare, and b) They're fighting in a desert, where you can see already.

Almost every military at the time used napalm and it was an acceptable weapon of war. You can never take rules and morals from one era and apply them to events before those rules came into being.

That applies for every case. You can't apply today's standards to WWI, Sherman's March, etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einsatzgruppe

Fine at the time, no?

Can't just go around sticking other peoples' morals on it, it was a war and all that.

Or is that somehow different?

You're calling drowning a chemical reaction?

It's a solvent.

It's a solvent.
Ehh..

In which case everything is a chemical weapon. Best of luck finding a weapon without a chemical structure!

Ehh..

In which case everything is a chemical weapon. Best of luck finding a weapon without a chemical structure!

Lasers and possibly sonic weapons depending on how one looks at them...

Pretty much any "energy weapon" would fit the bill.

The only thing Egypt did was say that the Brits, French and Israelis were not allowed to use the Suez. The only thing Syria and Jordan did was build a dam which diverted water away from Israel. As a result, Israel attacked them, starting a war to grab territory.
That is why the UN has demanded that Israel return all land it stole in 1967.

No, The Atlantian islands was right. Egypt was fighting to destroy Israel; Israel was fighting to keep from being annihilated.

And Syria and Jordan were wrong in building the dam, because they built it for the sole and express purpose of diverting water away from Israel.

And Israel's anti-Semite neighbors, NOT ISRAEL, were the ones who started the Six Day War.

That is why the UN has demanded that Israel return all land it stole in 1967.

Wrong again. The reason the UN demanded that Israel return all land it "stole" in 1967 is because the UN is viciously anti-Semitic, and wants to give Israel's enemies every opportunity possible to annihilate Israel.

On what source do you base that? All the sources we know say that Israel attacked the arabs. Not the other way around.

These "sources" have falsified history. They are simply LYING because they are anti-Semitic. The truth is the Arabs, not the Israelis, started the Six-Day War.

Generally speaking, shutting down a canal or a straight to one party is considered a casus belli . Though the canal is in Egyptian territory, Egypt does not have the right to selectively disallow use of the canal under international law.

You're right, but for some reason, politically correct anti-Semite bigots evidently think it's morally justifiable if the nation being deprived of water is [:rolleyes:]"teh ebil"[/:rolleyes:] Israel.

Again, this is a complicated area of international law. But, to put it simply, cutting off another country's water is a hostile act.

So you claim. But Israel's neighbors had taken hostile actions against Israel and were in the process of mobilizing their militaries for an invasion. A country in that situation has no obligation to wait for the hammer to fall before defending itself. The Arab world was hours away from invading Israel, the Israelis were just able to hit them first (and beat them like a red-headed stepchild)

Exactly. So the Israelis were genuinely provoked.

Israel has repeatedly negotiated in good faith in an effort to resolve its disputes with its neighbors. It gave back the entire Sinai to Egypt in exchange for peace. Israel was willing to agree to the "Two State Solution" back in 2000, but Arafat was more interested in holding on to power than solving his peoples' suffering.

All Israel has ever asked of its neighbors is for them to recognize its existence and to renounce their oft-stated goal to drive the Isrealis into the sea.

QFT.

And it will continue to be QFT until the Arab nations stop being genocidally anti-Semitic and accept Israel.

No, The Atlantian islands was right. Egypt was fighting to destroy Israel; Israel was fighting to keep from being annihilated.

And Syria and Jordan were wrong in building the dam, because they built it for the sole and express purpose of diverting water away from Israel.

And Israel's anti-Semite neighbors, NOT ISRAEL, were the ones who started the Six Day War.

Wrong again. The reason the UN demanded that Israel return all land it "stole" in 1967 is because the UN is viciously anti-Semitic, and wants to give Israel's enemies every opportunity possible to annihilate Israel.


First, let's look at your posting history:
1) Anti-homosexuality
2) Anti-arab
3) Anti-(atheist/agnostic)

So it's anti-semitic to criticize Israel's actions? People who think Arabs are actually people are anti-semitic?

Not exactly great. In fact, I could technically call you an anti-semite, since there's even more evidence against you about your dislike for arabs.

Israel is totally innocent from everything huh? Total bull shit.

And what about the UN being anti-semitic, have anything to support that?

Almost every military at the time used napalm and it was an acceptable weapon of war. You can never take rules and morals from one era and apply them to events before those rules came into being.

That applies for every case. You can't apply today's standards to WWI, Sherman's March, etc.

Considering that rape was not officially banned as a tool of war until about2000, I guess it was morally ok for serbian troops to rape women and children during the balkan wars of the 90's. In which case the International Criminal Court should drop all the rape charges that have raised against Serbian soldiers and Serbian politicians.
Afterall, using rape as a weapon of war was not actually illegal during the 90's by any treaty.

Having just actually looked it up, I should point out that Napalm has not been banned by the UN at all, nor has the US stopped using it. In 1981 it was added to the list of conventional weapons prohibited from use on civilian targets, but it has not been banned, added to the Geneve Convention, or been declared a prohibited Chemical weapon.

The US utilized liquid incendiary weaponry in both Gulf Wars (not technically Napalm or Napalm-B, but a more advanced mix).

Various peace and anti-war lobby groups consider Napalm an "inhumane" weapon. To me, this is insanity - no weapon is humane.

So I shouldn't feel disgusted at war crimes commited throughout history, simply because at the time, they were not considered as such?

Well, many people think Genghis Khan was "badass" despite the fact that killed tens of millions, raped thousands, and burned cities.

Linky: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1967_war

And I got it slightly wrong. It wasn't a suprise attack by the Arabs, it was Egypt amassing 100,000 men, 1,000 tanks on the border and closing the straits of tiran.


Also, people forget to mention that Palestinian militia were shooting mortars from Jordan, and Jordan was perfectly okay with that, which drew even more hostility into the mix.

Also, people forget to mention that Palestinian militia were shooting mortars from Jordan, and Jordan was perfectly okay with that, which drew even more hostility into the mix.

In their defense, Jordan was really stuck between a rock and a hard place. They genuinely desired peace, but they simply could not toss off their arab neighbours. I think they did the best they could in the situation.

Oh, and HAPPY 10,000 TO ME!!!! I've been here too long.

Well, many people think Genghis Khan was "badass" despite the fact that killed tens of millions, raped thousands, and burned cities.

Well he was a badass. The problem is thinking that being a badass is a good thing.

Well he was a badass. The problem is thinking that being a badass is a good thing.

Well, you see, the problem is that people think all badassery is the same. Lex Luthor is the good kind of badass, whereas Ghengis Khan or Adolf Hitler are not.

The US stopped using it because the UN and the Geneva Conventions consider it a chemical weapon. An inhumanitarian one at that. Any weapon system that causes unnecessary suffering is illegal under international laws and treaties. Napalm causes unnecessary suffering.

Shooting someone in the leg is unnecessary suffering as well, but I'm sure that happens all the time. Your definition of "unnecessary suffering" doesn't seem to be correct, or perhaps you should elaborate further. Short and long term side effects? Gene mutation? Etc.

All Israel has ever asked of its neighbors is for them to recognize its existence and to renounce their oft-stated goal to drive the Isrealis into the sea.

....then why are they building colonies outside their own borders?
Egypt has a peace treaty with them, as does Jordan.....

I'm sure the Arabs would just give the Israelis their land back if they had managed to win any of the wars of annihilation they launched. Am I right? Oh of course the Arabs wouldn't annex Israel if they won in 1948, 67, or 73
.

The war in 1973 was to get back land lost in 1967, and a US backed sanctions regime would have removed them rapidly - note how fast Syria was thrown out of Lebanon when the US finally decided they should go. Seconly, the fact that those states are a pack of bastards in no way excuses Israel fucking over the Palestinians. It is not empty land we are discussing, afterall.

Who didn't use napalm in the 60s?
The Irish. It kept sticking to their hands when they tried to throw it. Also it was quite nice with ice.

The US stopped using it because the UN and the Geneva Conventions consider it a chemical weapon. An inhumanitarian one at that. Any weapon system that causes unnecessary suffering is illegal under international laws and treaties. Napalm causes unnecessary suffering.

i obviously haven't read the whole thread and therefore hope that the following is not redundant. well, maybe i do.

whether napalm can be considered a chemical agent or weapon because of its purpose as an incendiary doesn't matter. the UN, through its members, instituted a ban on napalm as part of the convention on certain conventional weapons, which in turn is an amendment to the geneva convention. get it? CONVENTIONAL.

but here is the twist: the ccw was put into force in 1983 and israel didn't ratify it until 1995, anyway. so back in 1967, apart from ethics, they could drop whatever the fuck they wanted on those poor bastards.

Too bad Israel didn't use those "alleged nukes" they had when they got their butts kicked on the opening days of the Yom Kippur War.

Napalm is not generally considered a chemical weapon or a WMD of any kind.

There's nothing wrong about using it, not any more then it's bad to use regular explosives, which also injure and maim people in terrible ways.

You're calling drowning a chemical reaction?

Why, yes, according to your absurd definition that is precisely the case.

Who didn't use napalm in the 60s?

Swaziland?

Too bad Israel didn't use those "alleged nukes" they had when they got their butts kicked on the opening days of the Yom Kippur War.

If they'd had any in 1973, they probably would have...:rolleyes:

If they'd had any in 1973, they probably would have...:rolleyes:

By all accounts the Israelis armed a substantial number of tactical weapons deployed forward, but they were never used.

I don't want to nuke the jews. That would require nuking every planet on earth, including the Arab nations. I just want them to give back the land they stole by force.

The implication in your statement is that you would be willing to nuke the Jews if you could get all of them in one place in order to prevent non-Jewish casualties. But I hope that isn't what you meant.

And the Israelis have repeatedly tried to give back the land they occupied in 1967. They gave back the Sinai to Egypt in exchange for peace, for example. But, Arafat was unwilling to negotiate in good faith. The closest they came was back in 2000 when Bill Clinton tried to broker a peace treaty between the two sides. The Israelis agreed to all of Clinton's parameters for peace, but Arafat refused to agree to the terms or to make any compromise (even though he would have received 97% of Gaza and the West Bank as well as the Muslim and Christian quarters of Jerusalem). He then went home and reignited the intifadah.

Peace requires two parties who are willing to negotiate in good faith, and the Palestinian leadership has never met this condition.

Peace requires two parties who are willing to negotiate in good faith, and the Palestinian leadership has never met this condition.

Untrue. The Oslo accords were negotiated in good faith and may have worked had it not been for the Cave of Patriarchs massacre, increased settler expansions at the time of its negotiations, and ultimately the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin, all perpetrated by Israeli Jewish people.

These events indicate that a not insignificant portion of Israeli people are unwilling to see any sort of peace between their neighbors and themselves other than the peace of the grave and will do everything in their power to destabilize any other form of peace.

Both sides of the fence have their hands drenched with hate fueled blood of which part of it can be attributed to their belief in their innate superiority (Jewish Kahanism, the Orthodoxy and extremists Muslim clerics).

The (snip) condition.

See the QTF below
Untrue. The Oslo accords were negotiated in good faith and may have worked had it not been for the Cave of Patriarchs massacre, increased settler expansions at the time of its negotiations, and ultimately the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin, all perpetrated by Israeli Jewish people.

These events indicate that a not insignificant portion of Israeli people are unwilling to see any sort of peace between their neighbors and themselves other than the peace of the grave and will do everything in their power to destabilize any other form of peace.

Both sides of the fence have their hands drenched with hate fueled blood of which part of it can be attributed to their belief in their innate superiority (Jewish Kahanism, the Orthodoxy and extremists Muslim clerics).

I don't want to nuke the jews. That would require nuking every planet on earth, including the Arab nations. I just want them to give back the land they stole by force.

What nation hasn't stolen land by force in its past? Why should Israel be the only one to have to give up its spoils of war?

1-the Suez canal is a vital port/canal for israeli trade, and by doing so, the egyptians cut off trade going to israel
2-its the middle east! israel needs water, and the dam was taking a large amount of it
3-its not "stolen land" it was won through war in which both sides were willing participants, and accepted the risks of the war

its their sovergin right to do what they want with their resources and isreal could use the roads ya know
3 it is stolen since other than the israelis were ready for it

What nation hasn't stolen land by force in its past? Why should Israel be the only one to have to give up its spoils of war?Because unlike all others it denies the conquered a human status.
Why is the West Bank still occupied and being colonized?

Because unlike all others it denies the conquered a human status.
Why is the West Bank still occupied and being colonized?

Someone is a little rusty on human history, eh? People win wars, they take territories, and the colonize it for themselves.

Someone is a little rusty on human history, eh? People win wars, they take territories, and the colonize it for themselves.Not in civilized times. And in other instances the victorious are real nations, not fake ones formed out of religious retardation.

What nation hasn't stolen land by force in its past? Why should Israel be the only one to have to give up its spoils of war?

What, like the way the Syrians kept Lebanon, Iraq kept Kuwait, Vietnam kept Cambodia, Tanzania kept Uganda....?

Not in civilized times. And in other instances the victorious are real nations, not fake ones formed out of religious retardation.

You're feeling even weaker on that whole history thing.

More than that, Zionism was not so much a religious movement as it was a social movement for much of history, with a heavy emphasis on socialism rather than Judaism, the religious element of it only began to take hold in the nineteen-forties because of the Nazi genocide of the Jews.

Look at how Africa and the middle east were divided up, like those old colonial lines have anything to do with reality.

Not in civilized times. And in other instances the victorious are real nations, not fake ones formed out of religious retardation.

Like the Papacy? Define "real nation".

What nation hasn't stolen land by force in its past? Why should Israel be the only one to have to give up its spoils of war?

Because the land belonged to the arabs and was promised by the british to the arabs only to be betrayed by greed and the failing of the Ottoman empire to choose the right side

Not in civilized times. And in other instances the victorious are real nations, not fake ones formed out of religious retardation.

Whether you consider something retarded or not is irrelevant to the fact that Israel is a legal state, and has the right to protect itself from outside forces. And if protecting themselves includes taking land away from enemies to prevent further military aggression. Also, because they take that land away from an enemy, they have the right to do with it what they want. of course, mediation from third parties, in similar situations often leads to the withdrawal from lands, or prevention of colonizing said lands. However, they are a legal state, and have all the rights as other legal states.

What, like the way the Syrians kept Lebanon, Iraq kept Kuwait, Vietnam kept Cambodia, Tanzania kept Uganda....?

And as I said, often times third party mediation, or in some instances, third party intervention will make it available to give land back. However, if I am one state, and I know you are amassing to come into my territory and kill my people, then I have the right to attack back, and if I conquer land, I will use it for my own gain, to further protect from you and provide for my citizens.

And as I said, often times third party mediation, or in some instances, third party intervention will make it available to give land back. However, if I am one state, and I know you are amassing to come into my territory and kill my people, then I have the right to attack back, and if I conquer land, I will use it for my own gain, to further protect from you and provide for my citizens.

emmmm....where did you get the idea of that being a "right"? Because I've bad news for ye son....

You're feeling even weaker on that whole history thing.
More than that, Zionism was not so much a religious movement as it was a social movement for much of history, with a heavy emphasis on socialism rather than Judaism, the religious element of it only began to take hold in the nineteen-forties because of the Nazi genocide of the Jews.Judaism is a religious movement. Zionism is a subset of Judaism. And Israel has nothing to do with what the Nazis did.

Look at how Africa and the middle east were divided up, like those old colonial lines have anything to do with reality.And what? Is colonialism right?

Judaism is a religious movement. Zionism is a subset of Judaism. And Israel has nothing to do with what the Nazis did.

The mass post-war emigration of Jews, though, did.

And Zionism has everything to do with a Jewish ethnic identity, not necessarily with the religion of Judaism.

And what? Is colonialism right?

You're saying Israel is unique. It isn't.

The mass post-war emigration of Jews, though, did.The conquest of Palestine by Jews started almost half a century before that.

And Zionism has everything to do with a Jewish ethnic identity, not necessarily with the religion of Judaism.Jewish ethnic identity is entirely based on the religion of Judaism.

You're saying Israel is unique. It isn't.Who else has created a new state in foreign land and kept the original population under occupation and in a subhuman condition for 60 years while claiming to be morally right and unassailable due to what the Nazis did?

The conquest of Palestine by Jews started almost half a century before that.

In far smaller quantities than those who arrived after the war, though.

Jewish ethnic identity is entirely based on the religion of Judaism.

Hardly. There is such as thing as "Non-religious Jews." It's based on concepts and common experiences formed during the diaspora, the middle ages and the enlightenment, you should know that. In fact, Zionism is closely linked with other concepts of diaspora nationalism, of which there are several.

Read the introduction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionism)

Or, more precisely...

the modern movement was mainly secular, beginning largely as a response by European Jewry to antisemitism across Europe.

You're just wrong on this one.

Who else has created a new state in foreign land and kept the original population under occupation and in a subhuman condition for 60 years while claiming to be morally right and unassailable due to what the Nazis did?

Israel is supportable because it is quite unlike the surrounding states. It is ethnically and religiously tolerant as well as democratic and inclusive of Israeli citizens of all creeds and ethnicities.

Israel is supportable because it is quite unlike the surrounding states. It is ethnically and religiously tolerant as well as democratic and inclusive of Israeli citizens of all creeds and ethnicities.

You seem to be entirely ignorant of what goes on in the West Bank and Arab East Jerusalem. You seem also none too clear on the treatment of the Arab minority within Israel, which - though nowhere near as harsh - leaves much to be desired. I would suggest you make some inquiries before giving such absolution to what you deem "supportable".

In far smaller quantities than those who arrived after the war, though.

Hardly. There is such as thing as "Non-religious Jews." It's based on concepts and common experiences formed during the diaspora, the middle ages and the enlightenment, you should know that. In fact, Zionism is closely linked with other concepts of diaspora nationalism, of which there are several.

Read the introduction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionism)

Or, more precisely...

You're just wrong on this one. The "common experiences" are again entirely based on these folks' common religion: Judaism. There is no such thing as a non-Jewish Jew, and Jewishness is defined entirely by religion. There are no Muslim Jews or Christian Jews, only Jewish Jews.

Israel is supportable because it is quite unlike the surrounding states. It is ethnically and religiously tolerant as well as democratic and inclusive of Israeli citizens of all creeds and ethnicities.
That's irrelevant. The only relevant criterion is who actually lived in the land when the idea of giving it away to Jews came up. There was no need after the end of Turkish oppression in the Levant to take Arab land and give it to someone else for those else's ideology.
And btw, Israel's conduct in the last 60 years is not what I would consider supportable. Folks who build walls to detain entire populations and further colonization are morally bankrupt.

You seem to be entirely ignorant of what goes on in the West Bank and Arab East Jerusalem. You seem also none too clear on the treatment of the Arab minority within Israel, which - though nowhere near as harsh - leaves much to be desired. I would suggest you make some inquiries before giving such absolution to what you deem "supportable".

Compared to their neighbors, it would seem quite straightforward that Israel is a far better choice.

And, as I said, my emphasis was on the citizens of Israel, not those who have opted to align themselves with the PA.

The "common experiences" are again entirely based on these folks' common religion: Judaism. There is no such thing as a non-Jewish Jew, and Jewishness is defined entirely by religion. There are no Muslim Jews or Christian Jews, only Jewish Jews.

You are just plain wrong. There's no way around it. Jews are not defined by Judaism, rather, by a common Hebraic Semitic heritage.


That's irrelevant. The only relevant criterion is who actually lived in the land when the idea of giving it away to Jews came up. There was no need after the end of Turkish oppression in the Levant to take Arab land and give it to someone else for those else's ideology.
And btw, Israel's conduct in the last 60 years is not what I would consider supportable. Folks who build walls to detain entire populations and further colonization are morally bankrupt.

Never mind that the construction of a defined border and security barrier has radically decreased the number of terrorist attacks within Israel, most of the "occupied territories" were taken in defensive wars, wars often spurred on by this very Palestinian population.

As it stands, the involvement of the PLO in inciting conflict in the Middle East, especially the Six-Days War, is notable. Had the Jordanian government kept tabs on the PLO and stopped them from bombarding Israel proper, then the West Bank would never have left Arab hands.

Unlike your magical little world where the Jews come with horns and lay eggs, reality has two sides to it, and the issue is not as simple as "OMG OCCUPIERS@@@@!!!!!!!!".

And, as I said, my emphasis was on the citizens of Israel, not those who have opted to align themselves with the PA.

....I'm somewhat confused here. Israel occupies the West Bank and Arab East Jerusalem. It controls Gaza. Within these territories are the Palestinians. They are not Israeli citizens. I don't understand what you mean by "opted to align themselves with the PA". They are not even granted the basic protections of the Geneva convention by Israel, as a matter of policy.
I also fail to see why the oppression of a badly armed group of civillians who are not Israeli citizens is any more "supportable" than Syrian oppression of Israeli or Lebanese citizens....

Secondly, as they would end the Jewish Majority, they will never be granted Israeli citizenship, forcibly or otherwise.

The conquest of Palestine by Jews started almost half a century before that.

Actually, the original Zionist movement was interested in buying the land from the Arab landowners, and they did so with some success.



Who else has created a new state in foreign land and kept the original population under occupation and in a subhuman condition for 60 years while claiming to be morally right and unassailable due to what the Nazis did?

The Jews were happy to accept the post-war solution in Palestine- one state for the Jews, one for the Arabs, with full rights for the respective minorities in the two states. The Arab world responded with an attempt to wipe the new nation off the map.

After defending themselves from a multi-national army, the Israelis proceeded to establish what is the only liberal democracy in the Middle East, with equal rights for all of its citizens (which includes the right of the Muslim minority to vote and serve in the Knesset). Muslims living in Israel have more rights than pretty much anywhere in the Muslim world, ironically.

After the 1967 war, Israel found itself in possession of territories taken from the nations that tried, again, to wipe it off the map. Since then, Israel has been trying to trade these territories for peace, with limited success.

The situation is, of course, complicated, but it is 180 degrees removed from your asinine comment that Israel was "created....in foreign land and kept the original population under occupation and in a subhuman condition for 60 years." Maybe that is what is being taught by the dhimmi useful idiots in American academia these days, but it has nothing to do with reality.

I find it funny that no-one is able to make a non-biased post on this. Not me, for sure. I understand that Jews were horribly persecuted from when they first left Israel until the Second World War I also agree that there is some kind of need for a Jewish state, because one of the reasons Jews were an easy target for Nazis was because they were a minority everywhere, and a resented one at that. A Jewish state means that there is someone to reckon with if a state decides to persecute Jews again.

I would primarily blame the then-government of my country, Britain for the dispute. It promised both Israelis and Palestinians land in what is now Israel, following the capture of lands from the Ottoman Empire.

Hundreds of thousands of Palestinians were displaced to make way for a people who had left the area nearly about 1900 years earlier. If this were to happen in Europe, then the whole of Europe would unite against the newly formed state. This is exactly what happened in the Middle East.

Most of Israel's neighbours are, in some way, hostile to it. This is because of religious, cultural and territorial disputes. All these served to put a small, yet rich, nation in the middle of the states which liked it least. War then ensued, which Israel won emphatically. Since then, Israel's primary negotiation tool has been it's large, well equipped and rich army.

Because of the natural paranoia arising from being in a position like Israel's, they moved to squash and hints of an uprising. This lead to Palestinians being persecuted by the Israelis, to the point where they are not technically citizens anywhere. This iron-fisted oppression leads to homes being bulldozed, taxes withdrawn, all the fertile land is with the Israelis, and men under 25 are not allowed out pf Gaza, a strip of land with a population density greater than London.

The conquest of Palestine by Jews started almost half a century before that.


Buying land is conquest. Your warped view of reality cracks me up. Of course you're an admitted anti-Semite so you have no grasp of reality or logic.

Buying land is conquest. Your warped view of reality cracks me up.

Monopoly pieces must have been stored in a Risk box as a kid....

Who else has created a new state in foreign land and kept the original population under occupation and in a subhuman condition for 60 years while claiming to be morally right and unassailable due to what the Nazis did?

Well, if you take out the NAzi reference, you could pretty much sum up the various ages of empire that colonized most of Africa, India, the Americas, and big chunks of Asia under that description (although in many instances the top governence was ostensibly overseas, the administration of the colonies were entirely local due to the difficulties of communication with the home office). They just assumed that they were morally right and racially superior for other reasons - often equally based upon religion.

60 years?

A blip in the context of most colonizations.

But ask many Native American's how long they've been under occupation by people who still assume an inherent right to govern them.

Actually, the original Zionist movement was interested in buying the land from the Arab landowners, and they did so with some success. .

Buying land is conquest. .

All 7% of it that they bought, yes. 400,000 Dunums. We've been over this before. Go look up the numbers.


After defending themselves from a multi-national army, the Israelis proceeded to establish what is the only liberal democracy in the Middle East, with equal rights for all of its citizens (which includes the right of the Muslim minority to vote and serve in the Knesset). Muslims living in Israel have more rights than pretty much anywhere in the Muslim world, ironically. .

I like the way you leave out the expulsion of the Arabs to create the majority, the discrimination within Israel today and the state of apartheid which exists in the OT today....



After the 1967 war, Israel found itself in possession of territories taken from the nations that tried, again, to wipe it off the map. Since then, Israel has been trying to trade these territories for peace, with limited success. .

Why would somebody trading "land for peace" colonise that land by placing its own citizens on it?

You are just plain wrong. There's no way around it. Jews are not defined by Judaism, rather, by a common Hebraic Semitic heritage.What a rubbish. Arabs are Semites. By now Jews are a mixture of everything, only defined by Judaism. Those who left Palestine to go into the diaspora were the religious folks, the others remained. Jews may have been Semites then, but not any more.

.... and the issue is not as simple as "OMG OCCUPIERS@@@@!!!!!!!!".it is. there was never a need to create a Jewish state in Palestine.

Napalm as a chemical weapon? No. Napalm is an incendiary. A very effective one, at that. Too bad we stopped using it.
Ahhhh, but we have FAE.
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/dumb/fae.gif
All the flames, more concussion, and none of that nasty shrapnel that you find in iron bombs.

Actually, the original Zionist movement was interested in buying the land from the Arab landowners, and they did so with some success. 7 to 8 percent.

The Jews were happy to accept the post-war solution in Palestine- one state for the Jews, one for the Arabs, with full rights for the respective minorities in the two states. The Arab world responded with an attempt to wipe the new nation off the map. That's because the possible division of Palestine was decided over their heads. Arabs had every right to attack the intruders. The division of Palestine was not just about giving a empty piece of land to two groups. It was about cutting out half of an already populated area and giving it to foreigners without asking those actually living there. A purely imperialist move.

What a rubbish. Arabs are Semites. By now Jews are a mixture of everything, only defined by Judaism. Those who left Palestine to go into the diaspora were the religious folks, the others remained. Jews may have been Semites then, but not any more.

Time to work on your reading skills: Hebraic Semites.

More than that, the brush you're painting with is overbroad. You'd be well advised to be cognizant of the fact that Jewish immigration to Israel included roughly 900,000 immigrants from the surrounding Arab countries. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_exodus_from_Arab_lands) Interesting for your claims, no?

But, more than that, you are wrong.

Jews remained separate and isolated from the general populace, locked away in Ghetto's until the Napoleonic conquests. Jewish identity was formed from the pogroms, the sumptuary laws, the Haskalah and the restrictions on movement that had been placed on Jewish people for centuries. In fact, it was so strong and distinct that in 1938 there was a significantly distinct Jewish population across Europe as to permit easy classification of these individuals as different, rather independent of religion.

The fact that individuals such as Heinrich Heine, Albert Einstein and Sigmund Freud all are remembered as being Jews, despite their areligious nature gives lie to your claims.

Further, an article on Secular Jewish Culture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_Jewish_culture) ought to straighten your bullshit out.

But never mind, you don't want to pay attention to reality.

it is. there was never a need to create a Jewish state in Palestine.

The United Nations clearly disagrees with you, as do the Jews who live in Israel, and a whole lot of other people.

That's because the possible division of Palestine was decided over their heads. Arabs had every right to attack the intruders. The division of Palestine was not just about giving a empty piece of land to two groups. It was about cutting out half of an already populated area and giving it to foreigners without asking those actually living there. A purely imperialist move.

At the end of the day, so what? The Arabs were not happy with the solution and they tried to wipe Israel off the map. They failed, through their incompetence and Israeli toughness.

They can whine about what happened 70 years ago, or they can try to figure out how to create a better future for themselves and their children.

The fact of the matter is, if the rest of the Arab world really cared about the Palestinians, they could have resettled them in other Arab countries quite easily (Israel absorbed hundreds of thousands of Jews expelled from the Muslim world). But they don't- Arab government have been quite happy to use the situation as a distraction from their own corrupt systems, failed economies and backward societies.

Despite the fantasies of the whacko mullahs in Iran and Western anti-semites, Israel is not going anywhere. You all are just going to have to accept that.

The United Nations clearly disagrees with you, as do the Jews who live in Israel, and a whole lot of other people.

Firstly, saying that Israeli Jews feel the need for an Israeli state is a real no-brainer. To even bother to say someone is wrong on an issue about Israel, because the Israeli Jews disagree with them seems a rather mindless thing to do.

Secondly, the UN has shown little to no support for Israel's actions

Take from Wikipedia page - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_Nations_resolutions_concerning_Israel
"From 1967 to 1989 the UN Security Council passed 131 resolutions directly dealing with the Arab-Israeli conflict. Of the 131 resolutions passed, 43 could be considered neutral while the remaining 88 either criticized and opposed the actions of Israel or judged against its interests. Nearly half of the 88 resolutions against Israel "condemned", "censured" or "deplored" the member state or its actions. During this time, in the UN General Assembly, 429 resolutions against Israel were passed, and Israel was condemned 321 times."

This shows a clear international opposition to Israeli actions towards Palestinians, Lebanese, and many other groups.

Israel has shown clear disregard for war crime rulings in last year's war with Lebanon. Lebanese infrastructure was deliberately targeted, even when it was of no strategic importance and also indispensable to the Lebanese population. This barbaric war was launched over the capture of two Israeli soldiers, which pales in comparison to the hundreds of Arabs Israel kills and detains.

Just 3 months ago (6th September), Human Rights Watch released a document that said that most of the civilian deaths resulted from "indiscriminate Israeli airstrikes", This quite clearly contravenes war crime laws, which state that "warring parties are obliged to distinguish between combatants and civilians", which it is obvious Israel has not done. Israel also employed heavy use of cluster bombs, which are designed to kill/wound indiscriminately. It has to be said, that heavy critisism was also made of the unguided Katyusha rockets by Hezbollah.

Despite the fantasies of the whacko mullahs in Iran and Western anti-semites, Israel is not going anywhere. You all are just going to have to accept that.

70 years ago? Hmmmm. They're building settlements now, actually. And the majority haven't asked Israel to go anywhere except back over its own borders.